Why is Rape Wrong? This question may strike you as bizarre and easy to answer but in actuality it's more difficult to answer than you may think. Reflect upon this question and listen carefully to the two very different answers given by each speaker: One Atheist, one Theist.
Important terms in this video:
Humanism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
Nihilsim: http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm
Ontology: http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/o.htm#onty
@jbiemans77 Lol, yes there is. By you'r logic, there is NO WAY to verify the claims of ANY historical documents. funny logic.
6thwing 1 year ago
exactly, there is no way to verify the claims that are written in the bible. As you have already stated, there is good reason the be skeptical about the OT, and we should at the very most be agnostic about the NT.
But agnostic may not mean what you think it does, agnostic means that we cannot know if it is true or not. You cannot be agnostic and be a theist at the same time.
It also makes little sense worshiping, or basing your life around something you are agnostic about.
jbiemans77 2 years ago
Well it's a historical question. What you consider evidence in this sense can be relegated only to what happened. There's no other way to test the past.
regelemihai 2 years ago
I did not say that Jesus did not exist, just that claims about his acts were most likely embellished.
I have no problem believing that Alexander the great existed, but if you tried to tell me that he rose from the dead, I would not believe you.
I am sorry, but for any extraordinary claim, I would require more then an eye witness account to believe it. Personally I would require more then any number of eye witness accounts.
I don't know how something can be believed on that alone.
jbiemans77 2 years ago
Jesus' resurrection is multiple and independently attested wherwas the one in Matthew 51 is not. As others say regarding this account, I am agnostic about it.
Jesus' resurrection is unique because his resurrection is a vindication of his claims to be the messiah/son of God.
regelemihai 2 years ago
You still haven't answered my question. Was Alexander the Great mythical or was he not? His biography wasn't written 2 years after his death but 400.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Matthew: 51-53 At that moment, the Temple curtain was ripped in two, top to bottom. There was an earthquake, and rocks were split in pieces. What's more, tombs were opened up, and many bodies of believers asleep in their graves were raised. (After Jesus' resurrection, they left the tombs, entered the holy city, and appeared to many.)
Is that historical ? Dead people were raised up and went into the city and appeared to many ?
Also, if that is true, why is Jesus' resurrection so special ?
jbiemans77 2 years ago
If Nazi commanders wrote a biography about Hitler 2 years after his death, would you believe it was 100% accurate ?
I have seen Chris Angel walk on water, does that mean that he did ?
No matter how accurate a historical document is, it can never attest to miracles.
What if I told you that I died yesterday and came back to life today, that is first hand account given right after the event, would you believe me?
jbiemans77 2 years ago
Of course there is. By using criteria of authenticity like embarassment, dissimilarity, and so forth schoalrs manage to determine the credibility of a manuscript. The NT manuscripts are accurate historical accounts.
And I was asking you about Alexander the Great. His earliest mentionin in history come from Arrian and Plutarch 400 years after he lived. Was he mythical or not?
regelemihai 2 years ago
There is also the parable of the prodigal son, where we are all suppose to be in the position of the son, and God the father.
Yes I am skeptical of the earliest of what his earlest biogtraphers are saying? Thse are the earliest accounts of his life. Are they mythical?
They have heavy theological undertones, and there is no way to distinguish the reality from the propaganda. All 4 of the gospels were written by followers of Christ.
jbiemans77 2 years ago